Posted 4 years ago on Feb. 22, 2013, 4:22 p.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Don't you just hate it when the numbers
PROVE your "opposition" is right?

By Ian Simpson WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – Lawmakers eager to reduce gun violence in their states are proposing mandatory liability insurance for American firearm owners as a new way to limit deaths and injuries. Provoked by the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, the legislators hope to harness market forces as another tool for gun control. Proponents argue that operators of vehicles, for example, must have liability insurance, so gun owners should as well. Those who take safety courses, have fewer and safer weapons, and store them securely could get lower rates than those who did not, they say. “We may not be able to reduce intentional shootings as a result of liability insurance, but I do believe we can reduce accidental shootings,” said David Linsky, a Democratic representative in Massachusetts who has proposed mandatory insurance for gun owners. California on Tuesday became at least the fourth state to have a liability insurance bill introduced, following Massachusetts, Maryland and Connecticut. No state has a gun liability insurance law. Since 2003, almost two dozen such bills have been rejected nationwide, 15 of them in New York, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The liability insurance proposals come as President Barack Obama is campaigning for stricter federal gun controls. Efforts to control guns face an uphill climb politically in the face of a strong pro-gun lobby, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), and constitutional protection for firearms ownership. “ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN” The NRA itself offers “excess personal liability” insurance of up to $ 250,000 for hunters and for shooters at competitions or private ranges, according to its website. “Because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are,” the website says. A Maryland proposal would mandate that anyone possessing a firearm have liability insurance of at least $ 250,000. It requires anyone selling, renting out or transferring a gun to verify that the person getting it has liability insurance. Mandating liability insurance would help pay for damage caused by guns, Linsky said. But the main reason “is to get the marketplace involved in making gun ownership safer,” he said. NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said the organization opposed liability insurance for gun owners because it was “economically discriminatory.” “You don’t have to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right,” Samford said. Robert Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said that since no market now existed for gun liability insurance lawmakers would have to negotiate coverage criteria with insurers. “A legislature could in theory mandate gun liability coverage, but you cannot require insurers to offer that coverage,” Hartwig said. If insurers declined to offer coverage, states themselves might have to set up insurance liability programs, Hartwig said. Some homeowners’ policies cover accidental gun discharges, but those cases are a small fraction of the millions of claims filed each year, he said.The cost of U.S. injuries from firearms was about $ 174 billion in 2010
including lost work time, medical care and insurance, according to a breakdown of U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.Of the 31,328 deaths by firearm in 2010, 1.9 percent were accidents and 0.8 percent were of undetermined intent, according to CDC and National Vital Statistics Report numbers on the institute’s website. The rest were suicides and homicides. (Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Grant McCool)

So you are in favor of responsible gun owners being required to protect victims of their own guns?
Example
Mr A. is a minimum wage worker who owns a gun & his 12 year old son takes it and accidentally shoots Mr. B - putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. If Mr. A does not have gun liability insurance, who pays for Mr. B's life long care?

FACTS:
There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are unlicensed
It is illegal to drive an uninsured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help – but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them.
If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

THOSE WHO CAN – DO
THOSE WHO CAN’T - RANT

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it willreduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

Wow, That’s more than I can digest in one sitting. But the bottom line is I’m not giving up my guns. I’m a law abiding citizen, never been arrested, a responsible family man, I vote and pay my taxes.

Whether you believe it or not the long term agenda is to confiscate guns; much like the Brits and Aussies have done. Most gun owners know what’s going on. They will say or do anything to take guns from law abiding citizens. I will not give an inch. There are tens of millions of gun owners like me. We will not allow a few people who don’t like guns to take away our rights. It’s a gun issue, but just as important it’s a “rights” issue.

I simply don’t believe anything the anti-gun nuts say. They will lie, cheat, steal or try any underhanded trick to get our guns. Anti-gun nuts cannot be trusted.

You want to lower gun crime, then go after the street and drug gangs. Just leave us honest folks alone. We haven’t hurt anyone.

I speak for myself - I do not a dvocate TAKING guns
I welcome support for any of the above plan - that says n othing about taking guns - although if you believe the gun compay tools like the nra -I have a br idge to sell you.
"Just leave us honest folks alone. We haven’t hurt anyone."Honest - like Adam Lanza

"Proof" is a word you might want to take back, you might not want to introduce it into the discussion.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative claimant. Where's the proof that Lanza did anything? His dead body? Where are the video tapes from the school entry area and others? Were paraffin tests done on his hands to verify he was the shooter? Were his clothes tested for gun powder? He was found with hand guns, the medical examiner said the dead died from rifle shots. The rifle was in the trunk. What??!!!

The story is so weird and its getting weirder by the second. The families weren't allowed to see their children's bodies?? Death certificates will not be released to the public, against the law??? Some of the police cars had their affiliations taped over??? No one connected to the Sandy Hook shootings testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence??? It goes on and on.

Im for the complete eradication of guns in the entire world. In the perfect world in which I occupy it would be done voluntarily. In the less perfect world in which everyone else occupies, I will refuse to participate in the madness by refusing to even be in the same room as a 'gun owner'.

From Sandy Hook Shooting Oddities: "No one connected to the Sandy Hook shootings testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence today. I'm thinking, that's because, when you testify before Congress, you have to take an oath. Just by giving their names, the Sandy Hook actors would have committed perjury. --LRP" http://www.legitgov.org/Sandy-Hook-Shooting-Oddities

If one must buy insurance to exercise one's 2nd Amendment rights will one then have to purchase insurance for exercising one's 1st Amendment rights also? After all words are dangerous things. How many murders and mayhem have been instigated by words? Words are a powerful force and the cause of many a death.

So if your words are directly connected to a murder or any other crime or damage you will have insurance to compensate the injured party.

If you want to exercise your free speech best have paid your premiums otherwise shut the fuck up or go to jail.

I'm sure you will find this idea equally as appealing as your 2nd Amendment insurance idea.

After reading this thread and looking at the pictorial, I realized I was completely wrong about my standing on guns and I wish the powers that be total success in their attempts to protect us from ourselves
Thank you